2019 (4) TMI 1965 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - cable subscription charges collected from the cable operators - time limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant under the cover of its letter dated 01.05.2015, addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Tribunal, had enclosed a statement showing the reference of challans, through which the service tax amount was deposited by it. Further, the said statement had also been certified by the practising Chartered Accountant firm. However, the payment particulars reflected in such statement has not been considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order passed by him, owing to the reason that the payments were made by the appellant during the course of filing of appeal before the Tribunal and not at the adjudication stage. The matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the payment particulars made by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Consideration of additional grounds of appeal under Rule 23 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982.
2. Bar on limitation for show cause proceedings.
3. Tax liability dispute due to payment by principal service provider.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. Taxability of cable subscription charges under 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
6. Applicability of extended period of limitation for confirmed demands.
7. Verification of service tax payment details and remand for re-adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application under Rule 23 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, seeking to consider additional grounds of appeal related to the limitation of time for show cause proceedings initiated by the department. The appellant argued that the service tax liability was discharged by the principal service provider and there was confusion regarding the liability for payment of service tax as per a CBEC circular. The tribunal allowed the application for further consideration in the interest of justice.

2. The adjudicating authority confirmed service tax demands along with interest and penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the appellant. The demands were based on the premise that cable subscription charges collected from cable operators were taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Service', making the appellant liable for service tax under this category.

3. The appellant contended that the service tax liability had already been settled by the principal service provider and partially by the appellant, citing challans as evidence. Additionally, the appellant argued that the confirmed demands were time-barred according to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, referring to relevant case law and tribunal decisions to support their claim.

4. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, while the tribunal heard both sides and examined the case records to reach a decision.

5. After reviewing the appeal records, the tribunal noted that payment details provided by the appellant were not considered by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for verification of payment particulars and examination of the limitation aspect, instructing a fresh adjudication in line with their observations and granting the appellant a personal hearing opportunity.

6. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed for remand to the original authority for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for verification of payment details and consideration of the limitation aspect as claimed by the appellant.

← Previous Next →